Requesting “judges” to follow existing laws?

The USA Government provides lowest tolerable level benefits for returning war veterans. Although these “benefits” are provided, to pay for ongoing more essential and basic medical needs for the war damaged veteran, wives who Ex-ed after they became aware of the degree of damage, have been awarded half of the veteran benefit, in divorce settlements.

For better or for worse……

Although the “judges” can only legally divide assets and not income received after the divorce and the benefit is not income, they have been including the Government veteran benefits as assets in the division calculation.

This then leaves the veteran with barely half of the minimum tolerable level of Government support and thus not able to pay for legal defense of their situation.

The Arizona Governor (a woman!) has passed an additional law, to require State “judges” to follow the Federal laws on division of assets and income, in divorce cases.

What would these “judges” give to the second ex-wife and what would the veteran be left with after a second asset division?
In equity, should the veteran be able to claim from his ex-wife, to the degree that his ongoing needs are not met by Government benefits?
There really is a need, for sensible, simple as possible, workable legislation….

How realistic is it, to pass an additional law “requesting” “judges” to follow existing laws?

A lot of interesting issues here Murray. For one,factually marriages are ended by women 3/4 of the time or more. There should be a penalty for the one who ends the marriage, not rewards and certainly not gifts that they are not entitled to, morally or ‘legally’. I know the law is all things to all lawyers; just another example. This web site discusses more about vererans benefits: http://prisonplanet.tv/

Hi Murray and group,
Sorry for being totally off topic, but I was listening to Michael Laws this morning on Radio Live and couldn’t resist calling his show to put my 5cents worth in…of course I got cut off before I was able to get to my main point.
Michael Laws took sympathy with a female caller who said that it was unfair that her x-partner and father of their 6 children had taken out a Non-Removal Order, and due to this she couldn’t move to another city to get a job as a Mental Health Support Worker.
I am a mental health support worker and can tell you all that the pay is very low, and hours generally no more than 20 hours per week. This would not constitute a primary income for a solo parent with 6 children, and clearly she would still require the DPB and other government assistance. However, Michael Laws believed that this was indeed unfair, and “why shouldn’t a parent be able to take the children to another city if there was the prospect of a higher income than the other lay-about parent”. He was of course assuming that the mother was telling the truth, that she had been offered work in another city and that the father was unwilling to work due to the cost of child support for 6 children (you can imagine the amount of child tax that this poor father would have to pay).
I took exception to Michael Laws’ statement, and thus made the call. If Michael Laws did indeed make any sense with his claim that the parent with the higher income should get majority day-to-day care and rights to take the children to another city, then on that basis the Family Court would be awarding day-to-day care to fathers in most cases…that is if the proceedings happened quickly enough. I say this because the duration of proceedings usually impacts far more heavily on fathers (mothers get DPB and extras while fathers pay child tax and suffer grief from loss of contact and family home).
I am very disappointed that someone as influential as Michael Laws just isn’t with it, and has very little understanding of what it is like to have your children, marriage, family home and disposable income ripped away from you, and being powerless to prevent it.

Thanks for letting us know about this. Mr Laws will soon receive some feedback from me also. From your account, he is promoting child abduction away from fathers, and considers money (or in this case, even the unlikely promise of money) to be more important than fathers.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Latest Comments

Downunder Mon 19th March 2018 at 9:17 pm on Judge Timothy Druce@Bradley What feminist journalists do is write emotively, usually to create sympathy. That's actually fiction writing, not journalism, which is (...)

Ministry of Men's Affairs Mon 19th March 2018 at 8:44 pm on Judge Timothy DruceDJ Ward @24: Well said. Law graduates will probably be in their early 20s at the youngest. The age of (...)

Evan Myers Mon 19th March 2018 at 8:43 pm on Judge Timothy DruceA student having finished year 13 at school is expected to be able to handle the work place. A law (...)

DJ Ward Mon 19th March 2018 at 7:23 pm on Judge Timothy Druce#bradley. The only question is the legal one. Was she too pissed to consent. If the answer is yes then (...)

Evan Myers Mon 19th March 2018 at 6:09 pm on Education Issues in 2018Matamata College suspends students for encouraging and filming an assault. This is one the media can take straight to the (...)

voices back from the bush. Mon 19th March 2018 at 3:58 pm on The Psychology of Modern WomanWe have this social problem of domestic violence, according to feminists- all violence is a male construct and when females (...)

Bevan Berg Mon 19th March 2018 at 3:36 pm on Public trust in NZ’s judical systemWhat we see now is an argument between lawyers and politicians as to who might investigate moral issues in the (...)